Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Now that spring is here and Canada’s New Government™ has come to the realization that they actually know more about how to run Canada’s economy into the ground than they do about running it wisely, they have turned to a new fashion statement. And who better to be first out of the gate that new fashion trend than Maxime Bernier who today was sporting this new “panel” fashion outerwear:

Not wanting to be outclassed or outdone, Jim Flaherty was quick to respond with his own panel fashion statement, however Jim prefers his “panels” as “roundtables”

"To ensure a comprehensive consideration of the factors involved in interest deductibility and a smooth implementation, a Technical Roundtable of tax professionals, chaired by the Department of Finance, will be invited to work with government officials at a technical level to ensure that the proposal functions as intended. This Roundtable is a short-term project that will operate independently of the Expert Panel."

Too bad panels weren’t in fashion last fall, otherwise Fashion Editors like Diane Francis would have had no reason to recently write:

“I dread to imagine what the discussion around the federal cabinet table was last fall concerning measures such as income trusts or interest deductibility restrictions."

Did anyone bring up the potential, unintended consequences?

Was a huge menu, and range of varied options the topic of lively, heated and lengthy discussion?

Were the nuances of capital market reactions, or taxation matters, debated?

Was the obvious alternative of cutting taxes on dividends instead of trashing income trust promises a subject of great discussion?

Were the studies, commissioned by the previous government, and its many other solutions, reviewed carefully over days and nights by all cabinet members so they could deliberate in an authoritative fashion?

Or was talk just about how to finesse the treachery to seniors and Alberta about a promise broken?

Or did it zero in on how this would affect voting results in Quebec?”

As with any fashion, they are fickle, No doubt this panel fad will pass quickly as the Conservatives are simply trying to put out fires by appearing as if they are doing something tangible. Therafter it is certain they will return to their patented and trademarked form of government known as Canada’s New Government (all rights reserved CPC 2007). Speaking of panels and/or roundtables and/or councils, what ever happened to that Seniors Council that was launched by Marjorie LeBreton back a few months ago as the Conservatives hastily patched together something resembling a “we care about seniors” persona (in the belief an election was imminent) after they had summarily terminated the 27 year existence of the Council on Aging? Does the Seniors Council consist of more than that guy from the pension superannuation committee and an employee of the government? Have the new members been indoctrinated in the mindset that destroying seniors nest eggs is a good policy? That’s probably slowing them down a bit.

EVENTS

Income Trust Halloween VigilThanks to all who participated in both the Ottawa and Calgary vigils to mark the anniversary of the announcement.

WE"D LIKE SOME ANSWERS

As you well know, the ‘income trust thing’ has grown beyond the
question of whether fair taxes are paid on income from trusts. It’s
become a giant dirty snowball, and as it rolls forward it accumulates
more and more bulk. There are so many unanswered questions. Let's list a few and invite our "Accountable" government and our free press to provide some much-needed answers.

It is said “Trusts are inefficient use of capital. Why?” Two
related questions are ‘Whose money is it, anyway?’, and ‘Do Canadian
investors have a free and efficient market?’

How can information that is already in the public domain at SEDAR
make for a state secret? How could such information be used to harm
the Canadian national interest? And who would cause the harm?

Why won’t the Canadian media investigate the falsehoods and
misrepresentations told by the Minister of Finance to a committee of
Parliament? Was the Minister in contempt of Parliament?

Why won’t the Canadian media report (a) government tax revenues
gained from BCE in 2006 when BCE was a corporation to (b) government
tax revenues that would be gained in 2007 from BCE, if BCE had been
allowed to proceed to a trust, and (c) government tax revenues that
will be gained in 2007 from BCE, when BCE ownership has been carved
up as 45% foreign ownership and 55% large Canadian pension fund
ownership?